Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (OHS) Bill 2007 is to amend the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005. It will change the process of appointing federal safety officers. It will extend the application of the Australian Government Building and Construction Occupational Health and Safety Accreditation Scheme to cover situations where building work is funded by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority. It will ensure that persons are accredited under the scheme at the time of entering into a contract for building work and also take the necessary steps to see that such persons are accredited while the work is being carried out. It will extend the accreditation requirement to funding arrangements beyond those currently contemplated by the legislation. It will clarify that section 35(4) of the act only overrides Commonwealth provisions to the extent of any inconsistency and it allows the federal safety commissioner and persons working in that office to disclose protected information on the scheme to the minister.

Considering these provisions focus on improving occupational health and safety in the building and construction industry, the Democrats will be supporting the bill. Few would deny worrying safety problems in this industry. Overall, though, we must keep in mind that the unions mostly address workplace health and safety measures on a practical and necessary basis. We must also remember that problems in building and other industries are best addressed by the enforcement of existing law through a well-resourced and independent regulator.

On this point, I would like to take this opportunity to again emphasise that the Democrats’ industrial relations platform supports a single, national, strong independent regulator, which we do not have. We have a multiplicity of regulators in this country, and that is not to the advantage of the efficient, effective and safe operation of workplace law. The Democrats do not support industry specific regulators such as the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The single, national regulator the Democrats envisage is one that would absorb the regulatory functions of the state departmental inspectorates as well as the regulatory functions of the new Workplace Authority and the Building and Construction Commission. Importantly, the creation of a well-resourced, independent, single national workplace relations regulator would put an end to a federal minister’s discretion and interventionism.

Australia also needs a well-resourced, national, independent workplace relations regulator to properly regulate and oversee a single, national unitary system. Other sectors of the economy have regulators—like ASIC, APRA and the ACCC—and so should work arrangements. The existing regulators include federal and state departmental inspectorates and task forces. These diverse regulators are diffused, dispersed, underresourced and, importantly, insufficiently independent. One properly resourced national regulator to enforce national workplace law would be a significant improvement on the existing situation and a significant advance for the Australian economy and society.

I want to take the opportunity in debating this bill, which covers workplace law, to comment briefly on the coalition’s current and constant attack on the union dominance of the Labor Party and specifically of CFMEU influence on Labor. All that the coalition attack has shown is the cowardice, opportunism and lack of principle of the Liberal Party. Why do I say that? I say it because the Liberals tomorrow could introduce a one vote, one value requirement to electoral law. At a stroke, that would give power in the Labor Party back to their financial members and end it for union members who are not party members. The ALP has internal voting systems that result in exaggerated factional voting and the block power of union officials, who are allowed to use the large numbers of union members—the great majority of whom are not party members—to achieve and exercise power within the political party.

The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters took the first step with its recommendation to introduce one vote, one value in political parties in its report on the integrity of the roll. Some ALP reformers aim to make the process of trade union affiliation to political parties more transparent and democratic, so it does have support within the movement as a whole. Unions affiliate on the basis of how many of their union members, the great majority of whom are not party members, their committee of management chooses to affiliate for. The more members a union affiliates for, the greater the number of delegates that union is entitled to send to an ALP state conference. Individual members of that union have no say as to whether they wish to be included in their union’s affiliation numbers or not. Affiliation fees paid to the ALP by the union are derived from the union’s consolidated revenue.

I have outlined detailed amendments to address these issues in my Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters 2004 election minority report, which repeats remarks I have made over the last decade. But, as I say, because the coalition think union influence in Labor is good for the Liberals politically, they continue to attack a situation that is in their power to correct. The Liberals are unwilling to change electoral law and take Labor on, the journalists are unwilling to ask the hard questions of the Liberals as to why they will not do so and, in my view, the Liberals lack the ethics, integrity and principle required to introduce good political governance into the party system. I am of the belief that outsiders should not have the ability to influence political parties and the way in which they operate, and that is why I oppose the way in which the unions are able to exercise undue influence, over and above that of financial members of the Labor Party.

This is not news for anyone who has followed what I have said in this chamber over the last decade, and people know my advocacy in it, but I am extremely irritated by the constant reiteration by the Liberals of their views about union bosses when in fact it is their very own policy which allows the situation to continue. I think that is contrary to good policy and I wish they would stop it. Until they decide to change it and until the Labor Party decides to face up to that issue, the influence of unions will continue in the Labor Party in its current construction. One vote, one value, which gives power back to financial members of a political party—any political party—would end this.

The other reason I want to remark on this bill is with respect to Work Choices. This chamber knows that I and my party are opposed to the Work Choices legislation. We wish it had not passed and we wish to get rid of it. Because we have that view, I have been paying great attention to the various policies that have been put out with respect to the federal election that is forthcoming. I have had a look at the policies of the coalition, Labor, Democrats, Greens and so on across a range of issues, and a very interesting thing emerges, in my view. What emerges is that the result of Labor’s movement across to the centre in industrial relations matters is that they, the coalition and the Democrats all are pretty well talking on the same page.

That may seem surprising to those who have seen the ACCI’s remark that there are 30 major differences between the coalition and Labor. So what do I mean? I mean that, broadly speaking, in the areas of safety nets, awards, agreement-making, industrial relations machinery and so on, the parties have similar concepts and language but differ in application and proposal. I will not minimise the effects of that, because the effects are significant, but we are, broadly speaking, on the same page.

That leads to an ability to compromise and negotiate. For instance, the Labor Party had never signed up to a unitary system but now do, as have the Democrats. We have long promoted this. In fact, we promoted it ahead of the coalition. The coalition is obviously on that page.

With respect to the right to strike, the coalition, the Democrats and Labor are on the same page, in that it should be restricted to protected action. With respect to union rights of entry, we are all on the same page in terms of restrictions to the time and place, and on issues such as notice periods. For instance, the Labor Party’s policy with respect to right of entry refers to 24 hours notice, the place of meeting determined by the employer, the retention of the fit and proper test, and so on. With respect to secondary boycott laws, the parties—the coalition, Labor and the Democrats—want to retain them.

Why do I draw attention to this? I draw attention to this because of an irony that has emerged. I am very glad that Senator Siewert is here to respond to my remarks because she may be able to spell it out a little more clearly. There is one party that is not on the same page—the Greens. The Greens oppose Work Choices. They support a state system, not a unitary system. They support an open-ended right to strike; we, Labor and the Liberals do not. The Greens support free right of entry and open-ended awards. I am content, as always, for them to have their own point of view, because that contributes very well to the debate, but the point that I am making is that a vote for the Greens is a vote to keep Work Choices.

If you hold a position which is so far distant from Labor’s, and you also have a history of not negotiating or compromising in this place, how on earth are you ever going to come together in the Senate to agree on a package which will pass? If that is so, Work Choices will stay. The Greens cannot negotiate or compromise because they are not on the same page as the rest of us. It amuses me vastly, and I think it is a great irony, that the left-wing unions have arrived at a position to support a party—because that party strongly opposes Work Choices and a return to an old federal system, an open-ended right to strike and an open-ended right of entry—which will not be able to agree with Labor’s new position, and therefore Work Choices will stay. That is why we have the odd circumstance where a vote for the Greens will end up keeping Work Choices. You can correct me if you like, but I cannot see the Greens and Labor coming together, given how far apart their policies are.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very cunning.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is amazing, and it is an irony. I thought I would take a non-controversial moment in our legislative program to put what I would suggest is quite a controversial situation. By the way, I have mentioned this to others and people seem remarkably unwilling to come close to this extraordinary conundrum. How can the Greens and Labor ever get together in the Senate after 1 July 2008 to get rid of Work Choices when they are so far apart and when they are not on the same page?

I ask the question of you, Senator Siewert. I hope that you can indicate that you are able to move toward a unitary system, that you will restrict the right to strike and that you will restrict the right of entry. I hope that you will address these issues which make the Greens so far apart from Labor that we will not be able to get rid of Work Choices. I say that as a person who has advocated very strongly and very vigorously for Work Choices to go.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will address, a little bit later, some of the issues raised by Senator Murray. I have to say at the outset, though, that I think some of his comments were quite disingenuous given the debate that has been going on in the media recently. However, first off I will deal with the bill.

The Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (OHS) Bill 2007 deals with a very important issue. It deals with safety in the building and construction industry. There is no question that the building and construction industry is one of the most dangerous industries in Australia, and this is recognised across the board. When introducing this bill the minister acknowledged that fatalities in this industry make up one-third of all workplace fatalities, and that there are over 30 injuries per day. The Australian Greens will not be opposing this bill. This is because the bill contains much needed provisions for a health and safety accreditation scheme for building contractors.

However, we believe it is important to recognise that this scheme exists within the context of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act. We have, in the past, put on record our opposition to this act, and to the Australian Building and Construction Commission that it creates. This is an act that the Australian Greens are steadfastly opposed to, and we will continue to oppose it. It is an act which we believe has seriously undermined the health and safety gains made in recent decades for workers within the building and construction sector.

We do not want to see a return to the bad old days of Australian construction sites when you had 17-year-olds falling off buildings on their first day of work, or when there were no toilets or sheds on worksites, and when there were few safety rules and even less enforcement to ensure that there were no unsafe work practices.

There are a number of reasons for our opposition to the BCII Act, one of which is the way it has undermined the health and safety of workers in the building industry. The primary purpose of the act, we believe, is to intimidate building workers and stop them from doing what are otherwise considered their lawful duties in our democratic society. We have grave concerns that the restriction of legitimate union activity, whether directly or indirectly, will impact adversely on health and safety at building sites across Australia.

In a previous speech in this place, I outlined our concerns about this act and how the ABCC have been operating, particularly the way these laws remove basic civil and democratic rights of workers. The ABCC have been given what are very clearly coercive powers, and I have heard worrying stories about the way in which they have been using them. Due to this act, ordinary Australian workers have no right of silence, limited access to bona fide legal representation and a threat of six months jail for being involved in or possibly having knowledge of industrial actions that were not illegal at the time that they were said to have occurred.

The workers caught up by these laws are being denied basic democratic rights to procedural fairness and natural justice that all of us normally take for granted. These workers are being treated with fewer rights than someone who has committed a very serious criminal offence. It is all very well for the government to use the sphere of ‘union bosses’ in an attempt to justify this act, but the reality is that this act is hurting ordinary Australian workers. There are now well over 100 workers who have been prosecuted—some would say persecuted—under the act. The arbitrary and extreme way in which the ABCC operates has led, as I understand it, to people being prosecuted, even in circumstances where they were not present at a site to take the industrial action that is the subject of the prosecution.

That is extraordinary. These people have been put through extraordinary distress in a period of their lives, with prosecutions, legal bills and court hearings as part of what effectively amounts to an ideological assault. Imagine being on leave or working on a different site, then something happens at work—which you are not involved in and may not even know anything about—and the next thing that happens is that you are prosecuted.

Some of the stories of people affected by this act can be seen in a new film that is available on DVD entitled Constructing Fear: Australia’s Secret Industrial Inquisition. It is a very apt title. Fear is what this act is about. I have also heard other stories about what practices this act is leading to: breaches of safety regulations, very unsafe work practices, which workers are in fact starting to document and which will, I think, come to light in the near future. We need to take a serious look at the impact of this act on workers’ health and safety.

Recently I was contacted by a constituent who has been prosecuted under these laws. I will not go into the details of his case because it is still ongoing, but I wish to read to the chamber how this person described his experiences. He is now having difficulty finding work, which has led to him going into increasing debt. He says:

I was a contributing member of society and am now threatened with jail, fines and a huge bill even if I win. I have not recovered from my debts but I am finding little bits of work, most of which is outside my trade as a carpenter.

I believe that these workers are courageously facing an assault from a government which is pursuing an ideological agenda and they need our support. He goes on to say:

I cannot on my name leave such a mess for future generations. I will get some comfort from the fact that I will be able to sleep with a clear conscience and can only hope that those that use workers as political pawns lose theirs.

These are emotive words, but they reflect the reality of the effect of these laws on people’s lives. It is simply not sufficient to justify laws that are hurting ordinary working people in the way these laws are purely on the grounds of profitability and economic returns.

The Greens’ point is simple: we should not be allowing bosses in this or any other industry to gamble with workers’ lives. Cutting corners on workplace health and safety is clearly a form of gambling: a few bucks saved and a few extra minutes worked here and there in the hope that an accident will never happen. The costs of losing this gamble are enormous not only in the loss of lives—which is a reality—and injuries but also in terms of down time and lost productivity, which occurs when things go wrong. The odds are that, if you are dropping occupational health and safety standards, sooner or later something will go wrong. This is the kind of gamble that we should not be letting anyone even attempt.

Previously in this place I have told stories of Perth’s construction boom, which illustrates this culture of cutting corners—for example, where crane drivers have been threatened with prosecution if they take longer than five minutes each morning with their pre-start safety checks and of construction workers on the railway working 13 long days without a break and then being told they have no choice but to work the following weekend. Behind each of these stories was the threat from the boss that they would bring in the ABCC.

We are told by the government that they want to move us into a less adversarial industrial relations environment, yet there is no more adversarial body than the ABCC and its modus operandi. These comments are relevant to the bill before this place today because the Greens, like many others, hold grave concerns that a consequence of this act and the activities of the ABCC will be to intimidate workers into silence on occupational health and safety issues and, further, that they will intimidate workers into not wanting to be an occupational health and safety representative on site, which will hinder the very important role unions play in ensuring safe workplaces. This will, potentially, lead to even worse health and safety outcomes on building sites and even more workers and their families suffering injury. We believe this is unacceptable.

I now turn briefly, because I am aware of the time allotted to me, to some of the issues which Senator Murray has just raised. We believe that the Greens have the best industrial relations policies of all the parties, as I think Senator Murray articulated in his way. We want to see the end of Work Choices. This issue has been raised publicly. For your benefit, Senator Murray, in case you missed Lateline last week or the week before last, the leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Brown, articulated our position on Work Choices. We are unequivocally opposed to it and want to get rid of it. We will not vote to see it retained, but we will push the ALP to improve their policy.

We have made no secret of the fact that we are extremely concerned about the ALP’s policy, we will do everything we can to encourage them to improve their policy and we will negotiate with them to try and achieve some amendments, but we will not let Work Choices stand if we can do a single thing about it. Does that clarify matters for you, Senator Murray?

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to know if you were going to vote for the ALP bill.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will look at the bill when it comes through and we will try to amend it to improve it. However, as I said, we are unequivocally opposed to Work Choices and will do everything we can to move to a fairer and more just industrial relations system in this country.

Moving back to the bill, the Greens do not oppose the bill, but we seek to put on record our extreme concerns with the BCII Act and the modus operandi of the ABCC. We do not think it should continue to operate in its manner of intimidating workers, with its coercive powers. We believe it has no place in a democratic Australia and we will seek to do everything we can to have it disbanded as soon as possible.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators who have contributed to the debate on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (OHS) Bill 2007, as well as those broader issues canvassed this afternoon—they are perhaps even more interesting. This government is committed to workers’ safety. This bill is about saving lives, improving the occupational health and safety performance of the construction industry and developing a culture where work is performed safely as well as on budget and on time. This bill strengthens the Australian Government Building and Construction OHS Accreditation Scheme by implementing changes to the scheme. The bill enables the government to increase its influence as a client and provider of capital to improve the building and construction industry’s occupational health and safety performance. The bill also contains some technical amendments concerning the appointment of federal safety officers and the disclosure of information to the minister. These amendments strengthen what is already a strong base for improving the occupational health and safety culture of the building and construction industry. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.